Opinions & EditorialsDiscuss No One Should Be Above the Law at the General Forum; Originally Posted by foundit66
You don't seem to get it.
The reason why there was a multi-million dollar investigation is ...

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

The REAL difference here is that Repubs today are trying to turn it into political persecution when they did NOT HOLD THEMSELVES up to the same standards in previous situations.

Mikeyy answered.
I'll throw in my two cents.
I do not love Hillary.
I have REPEATEDLY said this election comes down to the lesser of two evils in a way that I have never seen a previous presidential election epitomize that phrase.

The reason I don't follow down your particular rabbit hole is because it would require discarding the facts of Hillary's illegal server. The FBI began its investigation after Hillary's State Department chums determined a number of her emails contained classified information. After keeping her server secret for more than 2 years, clear evidence of consciousness of guilt, Hillary was forced to turn the server over to the FBI. No doubt Republicans supported investigating Hillary's criminal breach of national security. In a shameful display of unbridled partisanship Democrats cried fouland began whining about persecution.

It's ironic you chose the made up Democrat partisan scandal of Bush replacing US assistant attorneys general's as proof Democrats don't engage in political persecution, obviously the spoon fed talking points you recite omitted the fact the US AG's serve at the President's pleasure. Oh wait, at the time Democrats devoted much braying to preaching how essential it was for the DOJ to be above politics but that was before Bill Clinton's little runway get together with Obama's AG.

Indeed Comey did give Hillary a get out of jail free card but only after cataloging her extensive criminal activity. Despite the fact the law does not require intent and that veteran former Federal prosecutors have since shown Hillary's actions demonstrated intent, Comey the Republican let her off. Got that? A Republican let Hillary walk on a made up requirement for absolute proof of intent, clearly a case of political persecution. Or do you not get it?

There is no comparison between the treatment of General Petraeus and Hillary Clinton. As the former commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as CIA director, Petraeus was a threat to Obama's retreat and defeat strategy. What better way to neutralize the threat than to discredit him with a criminal conviction for violating national security. Despite the abundant and irrefutable evidence of Hillary's and the absence of a requirement for intent Hillary has suffered not so much as an indictment for her massive breach of national security. The difference in treatment should surprise no one, Hillary is far better connected politically.

Only the first sentence of this is accurate. The rest is BS partisan lies.

There was a huge difference between Petraeus and Clinton of course.

Petraeus turned over nine volumes of his personal journals that contained massive amounts of secret and even top secret information to a civilian outside of the government that didn't have either the security clearance or the need to know this information.

Hillary Clinton included a very limited amount of classified and even a more limited number of secret information in email correspondence with those in our government that had both the security clearance and the need to know in the performance of her duties as the Secretary of State.

The levels of the violations of the law between Petraeus and Clinton could be compared, by analogy, as the difference between a boulder to a grain of sand.

Even Fox News, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, openly admitted there was no comparison between the Petraeus investigation where prosecution was warranted and the Clinton investigation where no prosecution was warranted.

This crap that there was any political involvement, bias, interventionism, or influence is pure right-wing horse manure. The cases are vastly different from a legal standpoint.

__________________"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

The difficult thing for the right when you post something like this is that it takes thought, even handedness, objectiveness and the ability to put your hate and bias aside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShivaTD

Only the first sentence of this is accurate. The rest is BS partisan lies.

There was a huge difference between Petraeus and Clinton of course.

Petraeus turned over nine volumes of his personal journals that contained massive amounts of secret and even top secret information to a civilian outside of the government that didn't have either the security clearance or the need to know this information.

Hillary Clinton included a very limited amount of classified and even a more limited number of secret information in email correspondence with those in our government that had both the security clearance and the need to know in the performance of her duties as the Secretary of State.

The levels of the violations of the law between Petraeus and Clinton could be compared, by analogy, as the difference between a boulder to a grain of sand.

Even Fox News, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, openly admitted there was no comparison between the Petraeus investigation where prosecution was warranted and the Clinton investigation where no prosecution was warranted.

There was a very limited amount of classified information and almost no secret materials found in her emails and, to the best of our knowledge, none of this information was shared with anyone outside of the government. Everyone it was shared with had the security clearance and the need to know necessary for the classified and secret information contained. All of it related to the conducting of State Department business.

Hillary Clinton was attempting to do her job as the Secretary of State and that makes a huge difference in evaluating the case. Yes, there were minor lapses because inappropriate information was included in emails but those lapses didn't warrant prosecution under the law.

If you actually studied the law you would know that government officials are often protected from criminal prosecution for minor inadvertent violations of the law in the performance of their duties. They can be open to civil prosecution but not to criminal prosecution in many cases. Hillary Clinton committed minor inadvertent violations of the law in the performance of her duties as Sect of State.

__________________"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.

The reason I don't follow down your particular rabbit hole is because it would require discarding the facts of Hillary's illegal server.

NOT "discarding".
But rather giving it the exact same treatment as when this exact same thing has happened repeatedly in the past.

Did anybody lynch Rove and Bush over their private email server?
Did anybody demand federal prosecution over this?
Was there an extensive FBI investigation to identify what secret emails were on there?

And the most important question.DID ANYBODY GO TO JAIL over that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

It's ironic you chose the made up Democrat partisan scandal of Bush replacing US assistant attorneys general's as proof Democrats don't engage in political persecution...

Who the hell are you talking to?
Where did I mention anything about that in this thread?

I swear. It doesn't matter what people really say. You just rant on whatever you want to in your replies...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Only the first sentence of this is accurate. The rest is BS partisan lies.

There was a huge difference between Petraeus and Clinton of course.

Petraeus turned over nine volumes of his personal journals that contained massive amounts of secret and even top secret information to a civilian outside of the government that didn't have either the security clearance or the need to know this information.

Hillary Clinton included a very limited amount of classified and even a more limited number of secret information in email correspondence with those in our government that had both the security clearance and the need to know in the performance of her duties as the Secretary of State.

The levels of the violations of the law between Petraeus and Clinton could be compared, by analogy, as the difference between a boulder to a grain of sand.

Even Fox News, the mouthpiece of the Republican Party, openly admitted there was no comparison between the Petraeus investigation where prosecution was warranted and the Clinton investigation where no prosecution was warranted.

This crap that there was any political involvement, bias, interventionism, or influence is pure right-wing horse manure. The cases are vastly different from a legal standpoint.

When you claim Hillary Clinton had a limited amount of classified emails on her illegal server, are you seriously claiming in excess of 2,000 emails including top secret and above classification is somehow minimal? Oh but wait, Comey testified the FBI recovered thousands of emails Hillary failed to turn over but they were available to her lawyers and Bill and whoever else had access to her private server. There is even an email from Hillary instructing one of her staffers to strip classified markings from an email and send it to Hillary's illegal server. Hillary obviously with deliberate intent exposed classified materials to people not authorised to see it but she was not prosecuted unlike Petraeus.

Remember Edward Snowden, the NSA system administrator with access to a massive amount of classified data? Hillary gave the same level complete access to her classified emails to her IT support person on her personal payroll. In addition to deliberately storing classified data in an insecure location, it is in arguable Hillary gave this unauthorized person access to her emails including classified materials. But don't worry, Obama's DOJ gave him immunity from prosecution shielding Hillary Clinton from any incriminating evidence he might give. Too bad for Petraeus he didn’t have Hillary's connections.

Just last weekend Hillary admitted that she lied to the American people about her email server claiming it was "brain freeze" or some such nonsense. She claimed she was truthful to the FBI but unlike Petraeus no recording or transcript of her interview was made. Instead, FBI agents wrote a summary report of Hillary's interview deliberately blinding the FBI from any evidence of perjury. No doubt Petraeus would have liked such favorable treatment.

Even the article you linked can't help but point out the obvious differences between how Petraeus and Hillary's cases were handled. The author claims prosecuting Hillary would have set a dangerous precedent given how carelessly the Washington elites handle classified materials but of course ignores Petraeus's prosecution in the warning. You see, the mistake Petraeus made was prosecuted but Hillary Clinton is above the law.

__________________
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive: its moral values."
French President Emmanuel Macron